Home  >  Ling/Lee Incident

Glamour Magazine Names Laura Ling and Euna Lee Two of Its “Women of the Year”

1103-euna-lee-laura-ling_at.jpgAll emphasis mine:

Current TV’s Laura Ling and Euna Lee went to Asia this spring to investigate a chilling situation: the plight of women who cross the border from North Korea into China to escape starvation, only to fall prey to human traffickers. Then, suddenly, the journalists became the story, arrested for stepping into North Korean territory and thrown into jail.

[….] “Laura and Euna’s commitment to expose a terrible situation led to their arrest,” says Clothilde Le Coz of Reporters Without Borders USA. “But we depend on women like them to make sure the truth gets told. And that truth is brutal. “Refugee women are sold like livestock,” forced into prostitution or to be the wives of peasants, says Lee. Adds Ling, “They’re trading one horror for another.

[….] I hope Laura and Euna’s experience propels people to address the humanitarian crisis of trafficking. Laura Ling wants no sympathy, just change: “To take risks to draw attention to these women is part of our job. It’s why I do what I do. [Glamour Magazine]

Risks to your own safety are one thing; I can’t accept such a glib justification for risks to the safety of the vulnerable people you’re reporting about. (And yes, how quickly we forget — it’s the governments of North Korea and China that are the real villains here, and if refugees died because of this incident, it’s because the North Koreans killed them with an assist from China.)

Maybe this isn’t the time or the place for another “sorry we endangered peoples’ lives.” The womens’ apology, the interest of the greater humanitarian cause, and the support both women have offered for LiNK since their release dictate that my criticism is probably counterproductive. My admiration for Lisa Ling is undiminished; I’d have done nothing differently if I found myself in her place and had a loved one in North Korean captivity. But I don’t think I’ll ever get over my deep ambivalence about Laura Ling and Euna Lee.

It’s good to see them bringing attention to the issue … but at what cost?

Hat tip to a friend.

22 Responses

  1. The Glamour Magazine award is already garnering them renewed criticism and negative comments elsewhere online (including on the Glamour site), but it’s a done issue for me. No amount of attacking Ling and Lee is going to bring any closure nor save any more refugees.

    I had no problem with Lisa Ling working to bring her sister and Euna Lee home (I’m a fan of hers myself), although I think it might have been Lee who generated the most sympathy for their case.

  3. Part of the problem here I think is the semantics trigger-word “Glamour,” since there was absolutely nothing glamorous about the events of March 17th.

    If for example Utne Reader had declared Laura and Euna to be Women of the Year, I don’t think the naysayers would be quite as vocal.

  5. Richard –
    I agree.

    kushibo –
    Your opinion about Laura and Euna aside, why all the animosity towards Lisa Ling? I agree with Mr. Stanton that targeting her was/is unjustified.

  6. Jeremy wrote:

    kushibo –
    Your opinion about Laura and Euna aside, why all the animosity towards Lisa Ling? I agree with Mr. Stanton that targeting her was/is unjustified.

    I don’t recall doing that recently, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

    If you’re talking about something I’ve read in the past, I’m pretty sure it would have an explanation attached to it about my misgivings toward Lisa Ling.

  9. Well, it would seem you should either ask me there (if I don’t adequately explain it there), or point out here which ones you mean through a link. I’d rather not write a whole treatise from scratch on my misgivings about Lisa Ling.

  11. kushibo, do you think leaving Laura Ling and Euna Lee to rot in North Korea would somehow make everything even or better? Is continuing to attack them (and puzzlingly enough, Lisa Ling) every time they get media attention going to save any refugees?

  13. I must be going senile. I could have sworn I wrote something like this:

    Now I’m not entirely misanthropic, so I think eventually it will be necessary to do what has to be done to secure their release (thanks again, Lee, Ling, and Koss), but their suffering should go beyond the inconveniences one would expect from, say, a lengthy stay at an H1N1 quarantine facility in Seoul.

    Yep, looks like I did. But you might have missed that if you stopped at the deliberately hyperbolic “So let them rot.” As the next paragraph or so makes clear, I never really thought they would or should rot in the Pyongyang Palazzo. Ditto with pulling out Mitch Koss’s fingernails.

    Oh, and I can imagine a situation where them publishing their books just might put more refugees in danger, so chew on that.

  14. At least two of the three stupogants didn’t think it imprudent to carry with themselves videotape of the North Korean refugees they had interviewed when they entered North Korea illegally.

    With such utter lack of sense, I shudder to think what deadly foolishness might spring from Lisa Ling’s Laura Ling’s or Euna Lee’s book. I could see them laying out a bunch of information that will be pored over closely by North Korean authorities for clues.

    Really, is this in anyone’s best interest who isn’t making a dollar from it?

  15. Alright, well, I apologize for overlooking that.

    But at the very least, I don’t think Lisa Ling deserves any blame in this at all.

    And it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that Lee pursued a book deal partly out of economic necessity (i.e. debt, not to mention the possibility of being laid off).

    Yes, that could be a problem with their books, but I think they both know at this point not to do or write anything that could incriminate anyone, not to mention there’s arguably nothing else they could say that isn’t already known.
    But who knows? Lee’s book might also get put on indefinite hiatus like the Lings’.

  16. “At least two of the three stupogants didn’t think it imprudent to carry with themselves videotape of the North Korean refugees they had interviewed when they entered North Korea illegally.”

    But wasn’t it the evidence from Mitch Koss’s seized camera that was used to crack down on refugees instead?

  17. Jeremy wrote:

    But wasn’t it the evidence from Mitch Koss’s seized camera that was used to crack down on refugees instead?

    I think Laura Ling and Euna Lee covered this in their Los Angeles Times op-ed:

    After we were detained, the two of us made every effort to limit the repercussions of our arrest. In the early days of our confinement, before we were taken to Pyongyang, we were left for a very brief time with our belongings. With guards right outside the room, we furtively destroyed evidence in our possession by swallowing notes and damaging videotapes. During rigorous, daily interrogation sessions, we took care to protect our sources and interview subjects. We were also extremely careful not to reveal the names of our Chinese and Korean contacts, including Chun. People had put their lives at risk by sharing their stories, and we were determined to do everything in our power to safeguard them.

    I have snarkily suggested that Mitch Koss was able to get out of their because Mr Chivalry wasn’t weighted down with all the incriminating videotape, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he had some on his person as well.